About your Search

20120901
20120930
Search Results 0 to 11 of about 12 (some duplicates have been removed)
, that the united states government had absolutely nothing to do with this video. to us, to me personally, this video is disgusting and reprehensible. it appears to have a deeply cynical purpose, to denigrate a great religion and to provoke rage. >> the film was initially to have thought to have provoked the attack on benghazi, libya, tuesday. ambassador chris stevens, former navy s.e.a.l.s chris woods and glen doherty were killed in that attack along with sean smith. not long after the attack reports surfaced that it might have been the premeditated work of a radical islamic group retaliating for an american drone strike which had killed an al qaeda command leader. libyan officials said they had taken four men into custody in connection with the attack. they also said they thought the attack was meant to drive a wedge between americans and libyans. this may be true. but even with all that has happened in libya, the bigger challenge for the obama administration may be with what's taking place in egypt. where even before the attack on the u.s. consulate in libya protestors stormed the emba
the next president of the united states will appoint several justices to the supreme court. that often is the most lasting legacy of an entire presidency. i find it strange, given the amount of coverage that citizens united has got, i found if i'm traveling or speaking to groups reporting, among progressive folks, everyone knows citizens unite and hates them. everyone knows the court gave us citizens united, the court upheld the piece of legislation not just for this president but probably democrats of the last 30 or 40 years. yet, the court is nowhere in the election so far. jeff, you wrote about this yesterday. what is your take on why we are not hearing about the court on the campaign trail. >> because, i have asked political professionals this question repeatedly. democrats and republicans say the same thing. they say the people who really care about the supreme court are committed to their party anyway. the people who want roe preserved are going to vote for the democrats those who want it reverses are going to vote republican. the swing voters don't care even if they are pro-choi
straps. the fact is, it's harder in the united states to lift yourself from poverty now than it was 50 years ago. yet, in the midst of a presidential campaign where the economy is the central issue, we rarely hear poverty mentioned by either candidate. according to a new report by fairness and accuracy reporting, less than 1% of the campaign coverage addressed poverty in any way. that is, at least, directly. consider this, this week's teacher strike in chicago, more than 25,000 chicago teachers went on trike over a mere yad of issues, not the least of which are the teaching conditions in chicago schools. the strike exposed the battle lines between the movement and educators fighting against high stakes testing and a better approach to measuring school performance. driving the battle is educational outcomes to improve economic things for kids. it is always education, which is first and often only mentioned as the cure. that prescription sounds intuitive. what if the premise is wrong? what is robert rector is wrong and it does affect childhood. the average low income child enters kinderg
and credit of the united states was to agree to this deal in which both parties bound themselves to these cuts which is called sequestration. this was the deal. this is what everyone agreed to after this climactic battle. this was the democrats basically appeasing the republicans who had exempted themselves from the normal procedures of governance on the deal of sequestration. now mitt romney is saying this deal is terrible. the president, what a terrible person the president is for signing on to this deal, and my running mate who approved the deal, awful person. and john mccain is running around saying terrible deal. they want to cut defense spending. to me it's like, wait a second, they won't even live up to the deal they themselves made months ago, how can we govern? what is the second term going to look like? >> isn't this part of the problem that obama was facing in this speech? i think a lot of people were disappointed in this speech because one of the things we all loved -- those of us who loved obama in 2008 loved the fact he seemed to lefl with people, he seemed to speak
on the national stage, i want the president of the united states to explain to the -- >> at his convention? >> if you're going to use it in such a cynical way. >> i agree with you about the policy but it would be political mall pra to, a, not kind of milk the bin laden thing on the national stage -- >> i have trouble where these drone strikes happen. i'm not talking about political -- >> we're talking about the convention tp there's two different things. the discussion about the president's foreign policy -- >> many of the media discussions including here on msnbc about foreign policy felt like we were watching a vote for obserama me up. there's all of this going after romney and i think it's legitimate, but some of the core issues of this president's national security policy are not being debated and i'm sorry, but watching john kerry and joseph biden criticizing the war in iraq, they voted for the war in iraq. joe biden was the chair of the senate foreign relations committee and shut down debate about iraq when it was being debated in this country. there's revisionism, jingoism. i'm not
more than 1/4 of chinese exports come to the united states. if you have a customer that's unhappy with you and that customer buys 20 or 30 or 40% of your products, you're not just going to turn your back, you're going to work with them. and the chinese work with us when we actually stand up to them on these issues. president clinton did it with intellectual property from time to time and the chinese would respond. there would be histrionics, they'd scream and yell and then they'd change their behavior a little bit. the same with these issues when we've enforced trade rules. i want a good trading relationship with china, i just think it's too one sided. i think americans when the congress, when the international trade commission, when the department of commerce, when the white house, when the congress stands up, when we all stand up it makes a huge difference and the relationship will settle in in a way a bit more advantageous to the united states of america and to our manufacturing companies, the smaller ones especially, and the workers in this country. >> that's in some ways what
the president of the united states, you know, supporting marriage equality, a larger majority of the country in favor of it. and you want to understand why the right is concerned about the culture war. they do thing -- and they may be right -- that they're losing the culture war. they're looking at the diversity of the country, they're looking at issues related to marriage, and they see everything at risk and they could be right because the country has gone way beyond it, particularly on marriage. >> because it's generational. it's not just that we're seeing that generational shift of seeing or approving gay marriage but among the minorities who may be more conservative they're also supporting it. i'm going with the party that does so. >> it's starting to move. >> there was a face put to it. there was a point it became political. my mother, my sister, my brother, my cousin. it became a face to someone that loved and wanted to get married. >> and think that was something very effectively done at the convention. sac wall zack walls, the son of two women who are gay marriage and benita veniz. s
Search Results 0 to 11 of about 12 (some duplicates have been removed)